Planning for a single-family house

Hello Matthias,

There are two points that have deterred me so far. On the one hand, the noise. I usually read that it can be around 60 decibels. On the other hand, the whole thing would come down to this ugly box on the house.

"Heat pumps are installations that do not require approval under immissions control law and are subject to the requirements of §§ 22 to 24 of the Federal Immission Control Act (BImSchG). The installations may therefore only be constructed and operated in such a way that

[*
harmful environmental impacts, including noise, which are avoidable according to the state of the art, are prevented, and
[*]harmful environmental impacts that are unavoidable according to the state of the art are limited to a minimum.


The immision-relevant sound power levels for the vast majority of indoor air heat pumps are about 55 dB(A) to 60 dB(A), and for outdoor units mostly about 62 dB(A) to 67 dB(A). Individual devices that correspond to the current best level of sound insulation technology have an immision-relevant sound power level of only about 50 dB(A) (e.g. split units)."

Source: lfu.bayern

For example, we like to work with a Japanese supplier of air-water heat pumps, whose values range between 39 and 50 dB(A) depending on the size of the system. In addition, the customer service is hardly to be topped by a German provider. We usually try to place the utility room near the garage so that the outdoor unit can be placed on the garage. This satisfies the supposed noise and the appearance.



That is certainly an argument. But does it already bring the necessary 7%?


This is just my personal opinion – no guarantee – but I think it should be sufficient.




I have attached a few pictures. Can you do anything with them?


Not really, but thanks anyway.




I can basically understand the argument. However, the measures I described are certainly already the "overkill" in terms of insulation, aren't they? Can you still get more out of it? I can hardly imagine it.



Range of services: Energy Technology

....

The use of energetic synergies, including alternative or regenerative energies, within a building or building system is integrated into an overall system of technical equipment.



[*]

[LIST]
[*]Integrative planning using simulation techniques to optimize energy use.




[*]Overall technical planning considering innovative, regenerative and alternative energy forms.




[*]Feasibility studies, energy consumption studies and economic calculations.




[*]Due diligence




[*]Inventory and assessment of technical systems.




[*]Energy consulting, energy analyses and energy optimization.




[*]Calculation of the overall energy efficiency of buildings, including the creation of the energy/building certificate

More information can be found at the German Energy Agency under dena.de.

Kind regards

Not really, thanks anyway.

What would be necessary, at least roughly (based on construction intuition), to be able to assess the whole thing?

If it turns out that there might still be something in it, then I will definitely address the issue of MEP.

Scope of services: Energy technology

....

The use of energetic synergies, including alternative or regenerative energies, within a building or building complex is integrated into an overall system of technical equipment.

[LIST
[*]Integrative planning using simulation techniques to optimize energy use.


[*]Comprehensive technical planning considering innovative, regenerative and alternative forms of energy.


[*]Feasibility studies, energy consumption studies and profitability calculations.


[*]Due Diligence


[*]Inventory and evaluation of technical systems.


[*]Energy consulting, energy analyses and energy optimization.


[*]Calculation of overall energy efficiency of buildings, including the creation of the energy / building certificate

Source: Pi

More information can be found at the German Energy Agency under dena.de.

Honestly, I did not understand this part of your answer.

Recently, the objection was raised here that a homebuilder cannot possibly know how often he would, for example, take a bath or how often he would use his fireplace. That is - with all due respect - nonsense. An individual's usage behavior does not change just because the four walls change; if a homebuilder has always opened the left window sash in the bedroom in his apartment, he will do the same in the new single-family house. If he enjoyed a full bath twice a week, he will not change that in the future either.

@ Bauexperte

This statement is complete nonsense. No one moves into an identical house, and thus usage behavior will change somewhat for some and more strongly for others. Why this is so was discussed with me €uro. It is clear that corresponding average values or empirical values can still be applied.

For all who don’t know the thread, here are a few counterexamples:
If I previously had no bathtub and no fireplace and therefore couldn’t use them, that doesn’t mean I won’t use them in the future. And if you install a ventilation system, you will also probably avoid having the bedroom window constantly open in the future.

Also, you might have additional rooms that simply weren’t there before or were not like that.
For example, family life might shift from the living room to the large kitchen with TV, or vice versa, because suddenly I have a living room with a dining area. Maybe the small child now prefers to play in the living room because the children's room is suddenly on a higher floor and therefore far away.

And then there is the passage of time, during which usage behavior changes indirectly.
Example 1
Family planning is underway, which requires more space, so building a house makes sense.
But now the wife is at home. Before, she was out all day.
Example 2
The children have left, the house is too big, the joints ache, retirement is near.
The solution: a small bungalow is needed and the big house is sold.
All those years from early to late at work and now at home all day.
Here too, usage behavior changes.

As a moderator, you should accept other opinions, which are also reasoned, and not dismiss them as nonsense.
I appreciate your expertise, but you should refrain from the occasionally offensive tone as a moderator and be glad that it doesn’t escalate here like in some other forums.

Musketier

Hello,

This statement is complete nonsense.

Is it really?

No one will move into an identical house, and therefore the usage behavior will change slightly for some and more strongly for others.

I also did not write about identical premises, but about "automatism". A left-handed person will always target the left side of the windows, a right-handed person the right side. If a builder moves from an apartment to a detached house, he will automatically use his "preferred" working hand and – for example as a right-hander – use the right door of his living space as an exit, etc.

If the builder has always left the bedroom window open, he will not stop doing so in summer, but rather have any existing ventilation system adjusted accordingly; at least have the control explained in detail. There are plenty of contributions confirming this behavior; so I do not have to write exclusively from my professional perspective.

This user behavior also applies to every work planning discussion; at least for us and not only in the building services planning of the house. From this "known" user behavior, both the architect and especially the building services engineer can develop models which he can simulate on his screen and discuss with the builder.

For those who do not know the thread, here are a few counterexamples: If I have not had a bathtub or a fireplace before and could not use them, that does not mean I will not use them in the future.

Anyone who buys an expensive fireplace will usually also use it. Regarding this "new" user behavior, the building services planner will ask questions about the current life and work situation and take the information obtained into account in his calculations.

Also, one might have additional rooms that were simply not there before or not in this form. For example, family life might shift from the living room to the large kitchen with TV or vice versa, because I suddenly have a living room with a dining area. Maybe the small child now prefers to play in the living room because the nursery is suddenly one floor above and thus so far away ...

And what does that have to do with building services planning? Will one room be used more heavily than another and thus can do without heating? These matters would only be relevant if a passive house is planned. But even here, practice has shown that it is sensible to build with "suspenders" (belt braces), because in a passive house the body heat is also included in the calculation. It is not uncommon for passive house builders to make a funny face when the place is cold after returning from work and certainly from vacation.

As a moderator, you should accept other opinions, which were also justified, and not dismiss them as nonsense. I appreciate your expertise, but the insulting undertone that sometimes comes through ...

If I wanted to provoke – or "insult" as you put it – I would certainly have omitted the "with all due respect."

Nonetheless, the HBF is no wish concert and it is unfortunately the case that many home builders believe what they have "learned" on the Internet or have "experienced" through their salespeople. You, for example, jump on the topic of user behavior because it confirms your opinion; meanwhile you overlook that there are constants that a building services planner must include in his calculations. Unfortunately, you did not grasp why I wrote what now stands in the thread. On one point you are right: "Sender => Receiver" - I should have written "the primary user behavior of the individual" does not change or also "in the future save energy through 'conscious' user behavior."

The Energy Agency writes on this: "Energy saving is not necessarily associated with large investments. Examples from different municipalities show this. Simple organizational measures or a change in user behavior can already have a great effect: User behavior has a significant impact on the energy consumption of a building. Up to 15% of energy costs can be saved through behavioral changes. The basis for this is the information and motivation of all involved. Building users and administration must work together on a rational use of energy."

For exactly that reason, I brought up the personal user behavior. A good building services planner – and there are more good ones than you might think – addresses this topic. But first he must get to know his customer's known user behavior and from his experience know which things will certainly not change in the future.

Kind regards

Hello everyone,

there has now been some movement in the matter.

The wall construction now looks as follows:

1 cm plaster
17.5 cm aerated concrete PPW4
14 cm insulation WLG 035
4 cm air layer
11.5 cm facing bricks

Additionally, in the roof 240 mm insulation MF035 and 120 mm under-slab insulation PS035.

Furthermore, a solar rooftop system including hot water storage has now been planned.

According to the assessment of our [BU], the Kfw70 standard should then be achieved even without a heat pump.

That would be more than fine with me overall; the air heat pump is anything but convincing to me.

Regards Matthias

Hello everyone,

by now we have come a long way. The earthworks were carried out last week and the slab has already been poured. Unfortunately, there was a mistake. The connection for the kitchen is located in one of the partition walls but should actually have been in the front exterior wall. We had communicated the desired position but it was unfortunately overlooked.

The developer's suggestion is now to break up the slab a bit and install the missing pipe. The architect who accompanied us also brought up the idea of laying the pipe in the screed. However, she also pointed out that neither solution is optimal.

My question now is, are there any other alternatives that are better? If not, which way would you choose?

Regards Matthias